ISSUE-115: Closeness is an aspect of a Shape, but the current syntax treats it like all other constraints.

ClosedShape

Closeness is an aspect of a Shape, but the current syntax treats it like all other constraints.

State:
CLOSED
Product:
SHACL Spec
Raised by:
Arnaud Le Hors
Opened on:
2015-12-16
Description:
This is a language syntax design issue. Conceptually, a Shape may be Open or Closed, so this seems like an aspect of the Shape. However, the current SHACL syntax expresses this as a NodeConstraint. This approach is technically defensible but results in a node constraint that is very different that all other defined node constraints. An alternative is to promote Closeness to a higher syntactical level, namely to make it a direct property of the Shape.
Related Actions Items:
No related actions
Related emails:
  1. ISSUE-115: Spec updated (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-01-22)
  2. Re: ISSUE-115: Did we rush this decision? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-01-15)
  3. ISSUE-115: Did we rush this decision? (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2016-01-15)
  4. ISSUE-115: Closeness is an aspect of a Shape, but the current syntax treats it like all other constraints. (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2016-01-07)
  5. Re: shapes-ISSUE-115 (ClosedShape): Current way of specifying closed shapes is not satisfactory [SHACL Spec] (from kcoyle@kcoyle.net on 2015-12-22)
  6. Re: shapes-ISSUE-115 (ClosedShape): Current way of specifying closed shapes is not satisfactory [SHACL Spec] (from holger@topquadrant.com on 2015-12-18)
  7. Re: shapes-ISSUE-115 (ClosedShape): Current way of specifying closed shapes is not satisfactory [SHACL Spec] (from arthur.ryman@gmail.com on 2015-12-16)
  8. shapes-ISSUE-115 (ClosedShape): Current way of specifying closed shapes is not satisfactory [SHACL Spec] (from sysbot+tracker@w3.org on 2015-12-16)

Related notes:

I think that this is about the closed construct looking like other constraints, but maybe not being like other constraints and thus deserving a different form.

Peter Patel-Schneider, 7 Jan 2016, 19:11:31

Design alternative 1: add a new boolean property sh:close of shapes, and move sh:ignoredProperties to be a property of shapes.

Concretely, the Turtle for Example 31 we become:

ex:ClosedShapeExampleShape
a sh:Shape ;
sh:close true;
sh:ignoredProperties (rdf:type) ;
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty1 ;
] ;
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty2 ;
] .

Design alternative 2: We could introduce a new class:
sh:ClosedShape rdfs:subClassOf sh:Shape .

ex:ClosedShapeExampleShape
a sh:ClosedShape ;
sh:ignoredProperties (rdf:type) ;
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty1 ;
] ;
sh:property [
sh:predicate ex:exampleProperty2 ;
] .

Arthur Ryman, 7 Jan 2016, 20:35:29

RESOLUTION: Close ISSUE-115, adopting sh:closed on sh:Shape
See https://www.w3.org/2016/01/14-shapes-minutes.html#resolution04

Arnaud Le Hors, 14 Jan 2016, 21:23:58

RESOLUTION: Change Resolution of ISSUE-115 to have sh:closed on sh:NodeConstraint instead of sh:Shape, and define sh:Closed as syntactic sugar
See https://www.w3.org/2016/01/21-shapes-minutes.html#resolution03

Arnaud Le Hors, 27 Jan 2016, 17:15:56

Display change log ATOM feed


Chair, Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>, Staff Contact
Tracker: documentation, (configuration for this group), originally developed by Dean Jackson, is developed and maintained by the Systems Team <w3t-sys@w3.org>.
$Id: index.php,v 1.325 2014-09-10 21:42:02 ted Exp $